
Class F 7 <^_ 



Book . H gILi 



The Settlement 

OF HiNGHAM 

MASSACHUSETTS 



BY 



LOUIS C. CORNISH 



BOSTON 

THE ROCKWELL & CHURCHILL PRESS 

1911 






o^ 



Copies of this pamphlet can be obtained by addressing the 
Ilinghum Memorial Committee, Hingham, Massachusetts. Price 
3o cents. 

"The Settlement of Hingham" will also be printed in 
"Hingham," a book to be published in July, 1911, by the Old- 
Colony Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. 
Copies can be obtained by addressing the Regent of the Chapter, 
Hingham, Massachusetts. Price fl.OO. 



THE SETTLEMENT OF HINGHAM. 

By LoDis C. Cornish. 

A FEW fjiniilies are known to have come to the shores of 
Bare Cove in 1633, and are believed to have been the first 
settlers. Others came in 1634. The deed to the whole adjacent 
territory given by the Indians thirty years later fixes this as the 
year of the foundation. " Certain Englishmen," it tell us, " did 
come to inhabit in the days of Chickatabut, our father chief 
sachem, and by free consent of our father did set down upon 
his land in the year of our Lord God one thousand six hundred 
and thirty-four." In 1635 some forty-eight settlers came, and 
perhaps as many more in the next three years. Their names 
are given us upon a list, made by Mr. Cushing, the third town 
clerk, " of such persons as came out of the town of Hingham, 
and the towns adjacent, in the county of Norfolk, in the king- 
dom of England into New England and settled in Hingham." 
" The whole number who came out of Norfolk, chiefly from 
Hingham and its vicinity, from 1633 to 1639, and settled in 
Hingham," he tells us further, "was two hundred and six." 

Probably somewhat enlarged by additions from other 
sources, this little company of perhaps two hundred and fifty 
souls apportioned land in 1635, settled a minister, "gathered a 
parish," built a meeting-house, erected their settlement into a 
Plantation, thus gaining representation in the General Court, 
and named their new home Hingham in love for the old home 
across the sea. 



Practical considerations no doubt determined the selection 
of the site. The bay gave good fishing, and the flats yielded 
plenty of shellfish. Then as now the low rolling hills stretched 
pleasantly inland from the harbor's edge. There were sightly 
and well sheltered building spots. The broad open spaces 
oflered easy tillage and pasture. There was an abundant supply 
l)oth of wood and of water. The site could be readily defended, 
and provided a convenient waterway to Boston, already a con- 
siderable town and well fortified. Not least of the advantages 
was a safe and sufficient anchorage in the landlocked harbor 
with the open sea just beyond it. Possibly another considera- 
tion may have had weight. The distance from Boston insured 
to the Plantation a considerable independence in the management 
of its own allaii's. Such may well have been the reasons which 
led to the selection of the shallow bay at the lower end of what 
is now Boston Harbor for the site of the Plantation of New 
Ilingham. 

With this said, there remains the more interesting question 
what brought these people across the sea ? Why did they leave 
well established homes in the old country to endure the dangers 
and discomforts of life on the edge of an untrodden wilderness? 
What tempted them to brave the little traveled and perilous 
North Atlantic? In short, what were the reasons for the migra- 
tiojiV Although it cannot be Ijriefly stated, the answer is |)lain. 
To understand it one must journey at least in fancy to far distant 
places and times, and see the erection of this plantation in the 
long perspective of history. 

Our journey will take us over the sea to England, and from 
London northward and eastward through the wide level lands of 
Esst'x, and Sutlblk, and Norfolk. The New Englander will find 



many names made familiar by long association, witnesses to the 
influence of this region upon early New England. Here are 
Wrentham and Ipswich ; there Stoneham, and Yarmouth, Box- 
ford, Sudbury, and Lynn. Here, too, is the little town of 
Worstead, famed seven centuries ago for its woolen stuflfs, a 
name that lonor since became a household word. The entire 
region has a character peculiar to itself. From the Thames on 
the south to the Wash on the north, these counties form a sort of 
promontory, which looks across the troubled Northern Sea to 
Holland and Belgium, countries which they much resemble. 
The wide marshlands are deserted and again flooded each day by 
the tide, and the far-famed Norfolk Broads call to mind the flat 
surfaces of the neighboring lowlands. 

Not in appearance only is this promontory like the low 
countries. From them it drew some of its blood, and much of 
its spirit. This easternmost part of England has been called the 
hotbed of independency. It was one of the strongholds, if not 
the very stronghold, of that independent spirit which in the late 
sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries established constitu- 
tional government in England, and planted it on the edge of the 
American wilderness. 

Curious testimonies regarding the persistency of Norfolkshire 
independency are on record. In passing, two may be selected 
from many others. The Evangelist Wesley, writing a century 
after our period, said of Norwich, " Whatever be the color of 
their religious convictions, they do all dearly love a conflict." 
And a modern writer, tracing this independency through the 
later infusions of Flemish and Huguenot blood to the early 
Scandinavian settlement, ends sadly, " This spirit has persisted 
through all changes to the present time, causing Norfolk to be 



the greatest hotbed of nonconformity to bo found to-day within 
the three seas." 

It will be well briefly to trace back this Norfolkshirc inde- 
pendence that we may see how deep buried its roots are in the past. 
In the very early days there are traces of Scandinavian settle- 
ment in this region. Later William the Conqueror Ijrouglit over 
weavers from Flanders, who settled in Norwich and laid the 
foundation of the city's prosperity. Later by three centuries 
Edward the Third invited over Flemish artisans who settled in 
Norwich and its vicinity. Their number was large, and they 
intermarried with the people. Later still, wherever these 
foreigners had settled there developed a stronghold of the Reform- 
ation, and later yet a center of this independency. Perhaps more 
potent than the infusion of foreign blood was the persistent 
influence and example of the foreigners. Through these centuries 
there was constant intercourse with the low countries, the nursery 
of European independency, and the foreigners in Norfolk and 
vicinity enjoyed substantial privileges that were denied to the 
peoy^le. So founded and fostered, this independency was shown 
in countless ways. To cite only one illustration, about 1360 
Wycliffe spread a knowledge of the Bible. In the persecution 
which twenty years later overtook his followers more persons died 
at the stake in Noi'folk than in all the other counties of England 
put together. Among the first was William Carman from 
Hingham. In short this eastern promontory of England was a 
region possessed from the earliest days of peculiar inheritances 
and influences. Norfolk was an important part of this region, 
Norwich was the center of it, and some sixteen miles out of 
Norwich lay the little town of Hingham. 

The facts known to us about the Old Hingham of three cen- 



turies ago are like bits of a broken mosaic. Judged by them- 
selves, though not without antiquarian interest, they have no 
great meaning. Placed in their pattern, however, they take on 
a large significance and are seen to be part of a great design. 

The mosaic into which the facts about Old Hingham should 
be fitted is no less than the history of England from 1600 to 1650, 
momentous years which witnessed the rise of modern democracy. 
The struggle for freedom it is true can be traced far back of this 
period. Judged broadly it is as old as time. But in this half 
century certain distinct democratic aspirations after freedom 
slowly took definite form and were securely established for all 
English speaking people. For our purposes modern democracy 
began in the last part of Elizabeth's reign, came more plainly 
into view in the reigns of James and Charles the First, and was 
permanently established in the Commonwealth under Cromwell. 
Emerging about 1600, modern democracy took definite form and 
grew in strength until it established constitutional government 
fifty years later. Such is the pattern of history into which the 
story of Hingham must be fitted to be understood. It was part 
of a great movement, the result of a vital struggle in human 
development. 

Mighty human issues hung upon this contest. Absolute 
monarchies were rising on the continent. It was boldly said in 
James' Parliament, and probably with truth, that England was 
the only country in Europe where the people were fighting for 
their rio^hts. The issue was clear-cut. On the one side were 
the common people, sometimes ignorant and mistaken, but dog- 
gedly persistent. The parish clergy often were with them, and 
a few of the bishops. On the other side was the Court, compris- 
ing the King, the nobles, and the higher clergy. The latter, 



themselves mostly of gentle birth unci created by the Crown, 
naturally were devoted to its interests. The two parties were 
fundamentally at variance. The Court neither understood nor 
sympathized with the rising democracy. Its conception of the 
state was wholly aristocratic, government from above downward. 
The people, impatient of these practices, were groping toward the 
modern conception that government rests upon the consent of the 
governed. The people desired to increase the powers of their 
Parliament. The Crown desired to govern without the Parlia- 
ment, or with a Parliament made entirely docile. The people 
were feeling their way toward constitutional government. The 
Court was dreaming of absolute monarchy. 

This fundamental disagreement nmst be kept in mind if the 
contest and its importance are to be understood. Unfortunately 
the issue is obscured by theological and ecclesiastical quarrels, 
and by the romantic appeals of the cavaliers and round-heads. 
To look on this controversy, however, as concerned primarily 
with churchly or philosophical matters is to profoundly mistake 
its meaning. Modern democracy, and nothing less, was emerg- 
ing for its ajre-lono; strusfgle against absolutism and privilege. 
It is in this broad aspect of the 'contest that we are all alike 
interested . 

To understand it we must lay aside our preferences for 
churchly ceremonials and definitions of religion. On these 
matters we differ. But a))out the desirability of a truly repre- 
sentative government, concerning the people's right to govern 
themselves, upon the princi[)le that we will pay no taxes except 
those which we ourselves shall levy, about our freedom to think 
and act as we please, and to worship God as we deem helpful, on 
these essential underlying principles of democracy we all agree. 



I 



In England there was a mighty difterence of opinion about 
these matters between 1600 and 1650. Men fought for them to 
the death and to the death men fought against them. It was for 
these great privileges of freedom that together with others the 
men of this eastern promontory were contending. 

While the contest was so broad in its scope that it is diffi- 
cult to show it in any brief compass, there were two points 
around which it clearly centered. The Church sought to sup- 
press all right of private judgment and independent action. 
The Crown sought to tax the people without their consent. 
Upon these difficulties the conflicting parties met and met again. 
It may be profitable for us to look at two fairly typical 
instances where these difierences are shown, and where the part 
played by the eastern promontory is also revealed. 

The first instance shows the temper of the Church in regard 
to the freedom of the individual. Persecution of independently 
minded people gradually increased through the century preced- 
ing our period. We find a number of persons burned in Nor- 
wich and its vicinity. For example, in 1556 William Carman of 
Hingham is burned in Norwich for being " an obstinate heritic," 
and for having in his possession "a Bible, a Testament, and 
three Psalters in the English tongue." In 1593 the Lords 
passed a bill making it punishable by death merely " To hold an 
opinion contrary to the ecclesiastical establishment of the realm." 
The bill did not become law. Reflecting perhaps upon the diffi- 
culty of judging unexpressed opinions, the Commons amended 
it. As passed the law provided that, "Any person . 
writing or saying anything against the Crown in ecclesiastical 
causes . . . shall be imprisoned without bail [It should be 
remembered what the English prisons were at the time]. 



8 

and at the end of three months shall be ])anished from 
the kingdom forfeiting all his goods and chattels, and the income 
of his real estate for life. Persons refusing to leave, or return- 
ing, shall suffer death as felons." This was for icritiiif/ or saying 
aiiyUnng against the Crown in ecclesiastical matters. Here 
surely was government from above downward I That the eastern 
promontory did not take willingly to this procedure is shown by 
the comment of Sir ^Yalter Raleigh. He held that there were 
no less than 20,000 persons in this vicinity to whom the law 
applied. 

The next incident shows the temper of the Crown in the 
matter of taxation. It will be remembered that on the death of 
Elizabeth in 1608 James the First came to the throne. He 
reigned until 1624, when he was succeeded by Charles the First. 
During these years continual quarrels arose between the King 
and people over the right of the Crown to levy taxes without the 
consent of Parliament. For example. King James reproves the 
Parliament for asking him how the taxes had been expended. 
The Parliament then records its conviction that this matter is a 
part of its duty and proper privilege. For answer the King 
goes to the House of Commons and with his own royal hand 
tears from the Book of Records the pages on which the resolu- 
tion is written. 

The same struggle is shown in a stronger light some years 
later. King Charles sends soldiers to arrest the refractory mem- 
bers of Parliament. A member sees them coming, locks the 
door in their faces, and holds the speaker in his chair while the 
Commons passes the famous resolution, declaring that thereafter 
any man paying taxes levied without the consent of Parliament 




ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH, HINGHAM NORFOLK, ENGLAND, 
AS SEEN FROM THE RECTORY GROUNDS. 



9 

shall be considered an enemy to the liberties of England. This 
member was Sir Miles Hobart, representative from Norfolk. 

Arrayed against this absolutism in Court and Church was 
the people's independence. Widespread throughout all England, 
perhaps this independent spirit found its largest single expres- 
sion in southeastern England in the little promontory where our 
interests are centered. 

Curious incidents show how strong was this temper in Nor- 
folk. In Norwich the citizens occasionally rang the church bells 
during the sermon time at the cathedral, and even interrupted the 
sermon with questions. We find Robert Brown, later known as 
the Father of Congregationalism, much in Norwich, where at last 
he was imprisoned. As early as 1580, his followers had consid- 
ered migratino; from Norfolkshire either to Scotland or the Island 
of Gurnsey in order to enjoy freedom of speech. John Robinson, 
who later led the Pilgrims from Austerfield and Scrooby to Hol- 
land, and who later yet helped on if he did not initiate their 
removal to Plymouth, was a settled minister of St. Andrew's 
Parish in Norwich between 1602 and 1607, where he may have 
been known to Robert Peck. Cromwell's mother was a Norwich 
woman, and Cromwell was much in this vicinity. Norfolk was 
one of the seven shires later associated for his support, and from 
Norfolk came many of his ironsides. 

Through these years the oificials in Norfolk had hard work 
of it. Bishop Harsuet of Norwich, for example, is disliked by 
the people because he favors the Court, and by the Court for the 
contrary reason that he favors the people. In 1619 he is singu- 
larly accused of holding " both papistical and puritanical leanings." 
Evidently the poor bishop did what he could. In 1624 we find 
him thanking the bailitfs of Yarmouth, a short distance from 



10 

Hingham, for closins: conventicles. In the same year complaints 
are lodged against him in Parliament for suppressing sermons 
and lectures, exacting undue fees, persecuting parishioners who 
refused to bow to the east, setting up images in the churches, 
and the like. He answers that these accusations proceed from 
the independents ("Puritans") whom he has vainly tried to sup- 
press. As the conflict gi-ew more bitter these difficulties increased. 

Much more might be related to show the temper of independ- 
ency and its expression in Norfolkshire. But this outline will 
serve as a background. With these facts in mind, let us look at 
one of the fragments of Hingham history that has survived these 
three centuries. We learn that in 1605 Robert Peck became 
minister of St. Andrew's Parish, Hingham, a conspicuous and 
influential position. The son of a country gentleman, who traced 
his ancestry back through twenty generations to an ancient York- 
shire family, he was born in Beccles, Suflfolk, a short distance 
from Hingham, in the year 1580. Beccles had been made con- 
spicuous by the burning of several heretics there a few years 
earlier. At the age of sixteen Peck entered Magdalene College, 
Cambridge University, then the academic center of the democratic 
movement, receiving his Bachelor's degree in 1599, and his 
Master's in 1603. It is to be noted that John Robinson was 
much in Caml)ridge until 1601, when he resigned his fellowship 
to take up his work in Norwich. The two men may well have 
been acquainted at the University. In his twenty-fifth year Peck 
was inducted into his first and only parish, which he served 
through many vicissitudes for fitty-three years until his death in 
1658. 

The contest which we have reviewed was at his doors. In 
the year of his settlement, 1605, five ministers were expelled from 



n 

their parishes in the diocese of Norwich, all neighbors of Robert 
Peck, and undoubtedly known to him. Soon after John Robinson 
left Norwich for Scrooby. In 1615 Peck was himself reported 
to Parliament for nonconformity and misdemeanors, in other 
words for his independency. We are told also that on one occa- 
sion the citizens of Norwich petitioned Parliament in his behalf.* 

Before continuing with the Hingham history it is necessary 
to recall that in 1625 Charles the First succeeded his father. He 
early chose as an advisor William Laud, who became Archbishop 
of Canterbury. With him the struggle to make England con- 
form was carried to its greatest lengths, and he early turned his 
attention to this eastern promontory. 

Sir Nathaniel Brent had been sent down to hold a metro- 
politan visitation. We are told that " many ministers appeared 
without priests' cloaks and some of them suspected for non- 
conformity, but they carried themselves so warily that nothing 
could be gathered against them." Robert Peck is believed to 
have been among this number. 

Such a condition of afiairs was intolerable to Archbishop 
Laud, who now transferred Bishop Wren from Hereford to 
Norwich. This prelate's policy has survived in a single phrase, 
"Uniformity in doctrine and Uniformity in discipline." He 
began at once to enforce these uniformities and in the little more 
than two years of his administration " he caused no less than 
fifty godly ministers to be excommunicated, suspended, or 
deprived." 

* The writer has not been able to verify the statement, but regards it as probable. 

Robert Peck married Anne Lawrence, whose father was " a reverend grave minister, a 
preacher to those who, fleeing for religion in Q. Marie's days, met together in woods and 
secret places as they could. He was a gentleman of great estate, and exceeding in liberality 
to the poor." 



12 

These fifty men would not read the Book of Sports in the 
churches as they were bidden. The book exhorted the people 
to play games on Sunday in Continental fashion, and was 
abhorrent alike to the Sabbath-keeping people and clergy. They 
persisted in using " conceived " prayers in addition to the 
liturgy ; that is, they offered prayers of their own composing, 
an offence strictly forbidden. They further stood at the desks 
instead of facing the communion table when they read. Their 
other misdemeanors were of a similar nature. Amons: those 
excommunicated was Robert Peck, now a man over fifty years 
of age. 

When Bishop Wren, largely for his doings in Norfolk, was 
impeached before the Parliament two years later special mention 
is made of Robert Peck. The Bishop says in his defence : " It 
appears in the records of this House that Robert Peck had been 
complained of for misdemeanors, and that in 1616 and 1622 he 
was convicted for nonconformity." These statements show that 
through these years Robert Peck had been fighting for the 
rights of the people and had been brought to the attention of 
Parliament three times. 

The Hingham story has many turnings. We must now 
look back to the earlier years of Peck's ministry. It may be 
noted in passing that in 1619 he baptized Samuel Lincoln, the 
fourth great-jjrandfather of Abraham Lincoln. Fourteen years 
earlier, in 1605, he baptized a little baby who was destined to 
play a notable part in the lives of many Hingham people. This 
boy was Peter Hobart, a founder and the first minister of New 
Hingham. Robert Peck baptized him doubly, first into the 
fellowship of the faith and then into the Christian ministry. 

Much might be said of the Hobart family with which Peter 



13 

was connected. The member who held the Speaker of the 
House in his chair in the incident already cited was a Hobart. 
Sir Henry Hobart was Attorney General to James the First, 
and afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. 
The family was prominent in the region. Their altar tomb with 
its paneled sides, built in 1507, may still be seen in the nave 
of Norwich Cathedral. The fact that it survived the later sack- 
ing of the Cathedral is probably a proof of the standing of the 
family. Peter's kinship with these distinguished men has not 
been traced. Some kinship is probable, if not certain, and in 
temper he was truly related to them. 

Peter was sent first to a grammar school, then to a Free 
School in Lynn, and thence to Magdalene College, Cambridge, 
where he graduated in 1625, from the same college where 
Robert Peck had graduated twenty-two years earlier. Next he 
became a " teacher," delivering lectures and preaching. But 
because of his independence he had difficulty in securing a 
parish. Cotton Mather tells us that " his stay in England was 
attended with much unsettlement." Mather also adds this one 
mention of his wife : " Yet by the blessing of God on his 
diligence and by the frugality of his virtuous consort, he lived 
comfortably." In 1635, together with the others from Old 
Hingham and its vicinity, he migrated to New England, where 
he joined his father and a few other settlers who had established 
themselves about two years earlier on the shore of Bare Cove, 
now Hingham harbor. 

While Hobart had been growing to manhood, the troubles 
between King and Parliament had deepened. Taxes had been 
levied without the Parliament's consent and collected by force. 
Archbishop Laud as we have seen had taken in hand the govern- 



14 

ment of the churches. And events had been happening at 
Norwich that were no doubt much discussed in Old Hinghara. 
The Dutch and Flemish people, we remember, had long been 
established in Norwich and its neighborhood. For many years 
their independent churches had existed under a special grant of 
Edward the Third, Despite the royal grant, however, the 
Archbishop proceeded to close these churches. Rather than 
submit the Dutch and Flemish people migrated back across the 
sea to the low countries. Many hundred people, it is said, left 
Norfolkshire. Perhaps as many as four thousand left the vicinity 
of Norwich. The exodus resulted in great detriment to the city 
and to the region, for these men were expert weavers. 

In short, a great harrying process was in progress. King 
James had said that he would harry the independents out of 
Enirland. By continuing the process Charles hoped to make 
England an absolute monarchy, and by this same process the 
Archbishop hoped to establish absolute ecclesiastical authority. 
He was trying to build that dreaded " Imperium in imperio," the 
kingdom within the kingdom, wdiich was so feared by our 
fathers. 

The Archbishop was seeking to make the Church the 
supreme agency in the government. It is well for us to under- 
stand what this meant to individual liberty. He revived the 
ecclesiastical courts. He forl)ade the right of assembly. Men 
could not meet for an evening's talk without fear of examination 
and penalty. For such an offence we learn that Rol)ert Peck 
and his people were discii)lined in Hingham, Peck had been 
repeating the catechism with a group of his parishioners, and with 
them had sung a psalm. We learn also that " he had infected his 
parish with strange opinions." A man might be tined, exiled, 



15 

perhaps banished or killed for like offences. It was for sound 
reasons that our fathers dreaded the " imperium in imperio." 

The reasons for all the migration to the low countries and 
to New England are rooted in this determination of the Arch- 
bishop and King to complete the work begun by King James, 
to harry all the Puritans out of England. However academic 
and shadowy this word "Puritan" may now have become, the 
King and Archbishop used it with broad inclusiveness. They 
meant literally to harry out of England all persons opposed to 
ecclesiastical courts and like institutions of tyranny civil or 
ecclesiastical, in short all who contended for a free and consti- 
tutional government. Under the name of Puritan they doubt- 
less would have included every reader of this article, no matter 
what his shade of religious opinion or affiliation. It was while 
these difficulties were at their height that the first exodus took 
place from Old to New Hingham. 

The immediate causes are at present unknown to us. For 
gathering in the rectory and singing a psalm together, as has 
been said, Bishop Wren had the culprits before him in the 
Church, and made them answer to each charge, " I do humbly 
confess my sin." The incident may well have played a part in 
their determination to migrate. Peck was a marked man, as 
was shown by the reports to Parliament, and by his " infection 
of the town with strange opinions." Hingham was under sus- 
picion of liberality and independence. These considerations 
cannot fail to have had weight. 

Probably the whole atmosphere of the time and place led 
naturally to the migration. Many people were leaving England. 
Cromwell, it is said, just missed coming to America. The Hing- 
ham people had seen the weavers driven out of Norwich and a 



16 

rich industry laid in ruin. They had seen similar removals all 
around them. They well knew the meaning of the contest, and 
their cause at this time was deep in shadow. Beside migration 
there was no other relief for independent men from the tyranny 
of Church and State. In 1635 the second company came out, 
and among them Peter Hobart. 

These settlers of 1635, as the others probably had done 
before them, came from Charlestown by boat, and landing on 
the shore of what is now the mill pond, Peter Hobart offered 
prayer for the blessing of God upon the new settlement. This 
may be fairly called the beginning of the Plantation. Events 
quickly followed. Land was apportioned in the summer of 
1635, and in October of the same year the name of Hingham 
was recognized by the General Court. Peter Hobart " gathered" 
the parish, and erected the first meeting-house, a log building 
surrounded with a palisade. 

After the exodus conditions in Norfolkshire grew steadily 
worse. The Archbishop by this time had silenced the week-day 
lectures, confiscating their endowments ; in many places he had 
abolished preaching ; and he had revived ecclesiastical forms 
long disused and obnoxious to the people. On entering and 
leaving the churches the people were bidden to courtesy to the 
east, a practice unknown since the Reformation. Since the 
Reformation also the communion tables for the most part had 
stood in tlie broad aisles. The Archbishop now ordered them 
to be restored to the east end of the churches, and to be raised 
three feet above the chancel floors. To us this order seems 
harmless. 

But to understand the bitter controversy which it provoked 
we must remember that our forefathers saw in this far more than 




THE EARLY SEVENTEENTH CENTURY PEWTER BAPTISMAL BASIN, OWNED BY THE FIRST 

PARISH, BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FROM ENGLAND BY THE FIRST SETTLERS, 

IT HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS USE FOR NEARLY THREE CENTURIES. 

DIAMETER 13 INCHES; DEPTH 3 INCHES. 



17 

a question of decorous public worship. When Governor Endi- 
cott, for example, cut out the cross from the English flag the 
act had many meanings. It surely was more than a question ot 
bunting and decoration. So the location of the communion 
tables contained meanings other than at first appear. The ques- 
tion then involved large political issues. For sound reasons it 
appeared to the fathers to be a matter of political liberty. The 
whole issue in short was grave and serious. There were open 
quarrels in the churches, protests from the Bishops, parlia- 
mentary commissions, petitions to Parliament, and a great ado. 

It is now to be remembered that Robert Peck was a marked 
man, three times reported to Parliament, convicted of noncon- 
formity. But to this order about the communion tables he 
could not submit. He not only refused to obey. He went 
further. He dug the floor of his chancel a foot below the floor 
of the church, and there placed his communion table, endeavoring 
to make it symbolic of humility. This was a daring and a last 
defiance flung in the face of an opposing power capable of crush- 
ing him. Having^ done this thing-, for which if cauojht he would 
certainly have been imprisoned, he fled over the sea, joining his 
former parishioners and fellow townsmen in New Hingham, 
where Peter Hobart, who had grown up under him, and whom he 
had baptized doubly thirty-three years before, was now the 
minister. So, as Cotton Mather tells us, "This light having 
been by the persecuting prelates put under a bushel was, by the 
good providence of Heaven, fetched away into New England, 
where the good people of our Hingham did rejoice in the light 
for a season." 

Robert Peck did not come alone. Many of the best families 
of Old Hingham came with him, about thirty in number. If one 



18 

may hazard a comparison between the companies, the earlier 
comprised more men of Peter Hobart's generation, the last more 
men of Robert Peck's generation, men well established in Old 
Hingham, in some instances probably the fathers of those who 
had come out in 1635. Blomfield, no friend to the Puritans, 
tells us in his history that these men came at great sacrifice, 
selling their possessions for half their value. Not a few in their 
coming showed that they still Avere possessed of affluence. For 
example, Joseph Peck, brother of Eobert, brings his wife and 
two children, and with them three maids and two menservants, 
five servants for four people. Even to-day this would be con- 
sidered luxurious ; for that time it was far more exceptional. 

The names of these families, about one hundred and thirty 
in all, have become well known the whole land over. The names 
are as follows : 

Jacob, Lincoln, Hobart, Gushing, Gibbs, Lane, Chubbuck, Austin, 
Baker, Bates, Betscome, Bozworth, Buekland, Cade, Cooper, Cutler, Farrow, 
Fop. Gould, Hersey, Hodsdin, Smith, Johnson, Large, Loring, Hewett, 
Liford, Ludkin, Morse, Nolton, Otis, Phippeny, Palmer, Porter, Rust, Smart, 
Strong, Tuttil, Walton, Andrews, Arnall, Bacon, Collier, Marsh, Martin, Peck, 
Osborn, Wakely, Gill. Ibrook, Cockerum, Cockerill, Fearing, Tucker, Beal, 
Eames, Hammond, Hull, Jones, Lobdin, Langer, Leavitt, Mott, Minard, 
Parker, Russell, Spi'ague, Strange, Underwood,' Ward, Woodward, Winches- 
ter, Walker, Barnes, Cobbit, Clapp, Carlslye, Diraock, Dreuce, Hett. Joshlin, 
Morrick, Nichols, Paynter, Pitts, Shave, Turner, Tower, Gilman, Foulsham, 
Chamberlain, Bates, Knights, James, Buck, Payne, Michell, Sutton, Moore, 
Allen, Ilawke, Ripley, Benson, Lawrence, Stephens, Stodder, Wilder, Thax- 
ter, Ililliard, Price, Burr, Whiton, Lazell, Stowell, Garnett, and Canterbury. 

Here then were some one hundred and thirty families trans- 
planted from the level country of that eastern promontory, from 
the broad and fertile Norfolk fields, the comfort of well estab- 
lished homes, the simple and pleasing dignity of Old Hingham, 




U O 






I o 

CD 5 



19 

to the sandy soil, the shallow harbor, the hardship and desolation 
of the remote wilderness, to the frontier edge of an untrodden 
continent. This is something worth pondering on. Search the 
records as we may the plainer becomes the fact that the predomi- 
nating motive which brought them here was the love of liberty. 
They were moved by that spirit of democracy which in ever 
increasing strength has been slowly changing the face of the 
world, and whose greatest single expression is found to-day in 
our Republic. They believed, as the fourth great-grandson ot 
Samuel Lincoln described democracy, in government "of the 
people, by the people, and for the people." And the Hingham 
Plantation in those early days contributed in no small measure to 
the formation of that spirit of New England independency which 
later so largely shaped our national institutions. 

The story of the exodus, however, must not merge into the 
history of the Hingham Plantation, which happily still continues. 
Perhaps no better ending can be given this narrative than to 
follow the life of Robert Peck to its close. New Hingham made 
him the co-laborer with Peter Hobart, curiously enough reordain- 
ing him to this office. Many New England parish pulpits 
were thus " double-barreled." In this capacity he served New 
Hingham for three years, living on the land now owned by the 
First Parish just to the south of the Old Meeting House. 

Meantime in England the mighty storm of protest and 
rebellion was gathering. King Charles was forcing the Parlia- 
ment to arms. The beginnings of the Commonwealth were 
appearing. The King and Archbishop could not heed the inde- 
pendency of a Norfolk minister, no matter how flagrant. So in 
1641 the people of Old Hingham urged Robert Peck to return to 
them. Peck's successor had reported that the people were " very 



20 

factious, resorting to other Churches.'" The last exodus of 1638 
had indeed left the town in a pitiable condition. A curious peti- 
tion, still preserved in manuscript in the Bodleian Library at 
Oxford, sets forth the pathetic straits to which the community had 
been reduced, and gives a picture of the times that is worth noting. 

It is addressed to " the Rii^ht Honorable the Knijjhts, Bur- 
gesses and Cittizens of the House of Commons," and is entitled, 
"The humble pcticon of the Inhabitants of the poore ruinated 
towne of Hingham." It "in most humble wise sheweth " how 
Robert Peck had for thirty and two years been discharging the 
office of faithful pastor, "being a learned, godly, loving, peaceful 
and painful minister, a man so unblameable in his life and doc- 
trine that no just oifence in either could ever be found concern- 
ing him." It tells how he was excommunicated for not appearing 
in person before the Chancellor of the Diocese, how when he 
sought reinstatement he must sign " certain new Articles," how 
on his refusal the Bishop took away his living, " and put in 
Curates to the vexation of the parson and parishioners." " About 
a year and a half after they deprived him under a pretence of 
non-residency ; yet he did always abide where he had so long 
lived, having had such a care of his charge in religion and civil 
affairs, that the people were able to maintain their poor and to 
help other towns, as neighboring Townes can well witnesse." 

The petition next touches on the reasons for the exodus. 
" The minister being driven away, and forced in his old age to 
flee to seek his peace, and diverse of the inhabitants put to great 
loss and charges by the Chancellor and other ecclesiastical offi- 
cers, some for going to a neighboring towne to hear a godly 
minister preach, and most of them for building a mount in the 
east end of the Chancel, and of observing ceremonies to which 



21 

they were inforced ; (it transpires that) Most of the able inhabi- 
tants have forsaken their dwellings, and have gone several ways 
for their peace and quiet, and the towne is now left and like to 
be in misery by reason of the meanness of the (remaining) 
inhabitants." 

The petition relates recent difficulties and ends with one 
most illuminating incident that occurred some time after the 
exodus. A fair was held in the town on St. Matthias Day. A 
neighboring minister, Mr. Vylett, was asked to preach. 
" Amongst other godly exhortations he did wish the people to 
make use of the means of grace for (he said) some lights are gone 
out of this land." For this reference to Robert Peck and his 
associates Vylett was immediately deprived of his right to 
preach, and had to make two journeys up to London before he 
could be reinstated. 

The petition ends with " humbly craving redresse, that 
Mr. Peck our old minister may be by law and justice of this 
Court reduced to his old possession." 

As the date when this petition was submitted to Parliament 
is unknown, it probably was about 1640, we cannot tell what 
direct connection it had with Peck's return. But he is believed 
to have left New Hingham in 1641. "The invitation of his 
friends at Hingham in England," Cotton Mather tells us, "per- 
suaded him to return unto them ; where, being thought a great 
person for stature, yet a greater for spirit, he was greatly ser- 
viceable for the o:ood of the Church." It could have been no 
easy thing for him to have returned to " the poor ruinated towne," 
whence most of his friends had fled. But he went back to take 
up again his interrupted ministry, and to bear his part in the 
approaching conflict. There can be no doubt that thorough 



22 

research in England would bring to light more concerning both 
Peck and his associates. 

The times had dealt hard with the Bishop of Norwich, suc- 
cessor to the Bishop who had persecuted Robert Peck. The 
citizens had sacked his palace, had burned his papers and books 
in front of the cathedral, and stripped alike of his private for- 
tune and emoluments and broken in health the poor bishop took 
refuge in Old Hingham, where both he and Robert Peck lived for 
the remainder of their lives. 

One last incident of Peck's ministry must be mentioned. 
In 1654 he was appointed on a Parliamentary Commission to 
"eject the scandalous, ignorant, and inefficient ministers and 
schoolmasters of Norfolk and Norwich." Perhaps this was not 
an uncongenial task ! 

He died in 1658, and, as he himself directed in his will, was 
buried "beside my wife and near my church." His will, it is 
pleasant to note, breathes a suggestion of plenty. He speaks of 
" My messuage, with all its edifices, yeards, and orchards, also 
enclosures and barns adjoining." He speaks also of " my lady- 
close," possibly a part of some convent land. Evidently his 
last years were spent in comfort, perhaps even in affluence. On 
his death he had served his parish for fifty-three years, of which 
three years had been given to this section that had removed 
itself across the sea. 

The happenings at New Hingham in themselves form a story 
of no small significance. But we arc concerned here only with 
the causes which led to the erection of this Plantation. When 
these causes ceased to be operative, that is, when the monarchy 
fell and the Commonwealth under Cromwell came into power, 
immigration to New England wholly ceased. For the next two 



23 

centuries there was little growth in the New England Colonies 
except that which came by their own natural development. No 
more convincing proof could be shown that combined as it was 
Avith many others the main motive of the immigration was the 
love of freedom. 

We are confronted to-day with rapidly shifting conditions. 
A newer New England is surplanting the old. Customs and 
traditions are being established among us which, if not hostile to 
our democratic spirit, are alien to it. This is because some of 
our newei and older citizens alike are often ignorant of our his- 
tory and of the heroic service by which the men of the older 
time purchased our freedom. Surely we can most profitably 
romcmljor the history of the New England settlements. And by 
no means least among them is the story of the erection of this 
free Plantation of New Ilingham. Unless deep disappointment 
awaits those who hope that the newer New England will become 
more truly democratic and better than was the older New Eng- 
land, our newer New England must attain to a larger measure of 
individual liberty than did the old. This can best be brought to 
pass, not by forgetting the work of the forefathers, but by look- 
ing unto the rock whence we were hewn. 



LBAg'l2 



Y 



